Riddle me this:?

this is a discussion within the Saints Community Forum; [quote:f4d44772b1] How can you embrace one and not the other?[quote:f4d44772b1]
This is what most of the replies been referring to. If you are truly asking the question should Sully be given one more chance this year -- I would answer ...

[quote:f4d44772b1] How can you embrace one and not the other?[quote:f4d44772b1]

This is what most of the replies been referring to. If you are truly asking the question should Sully be given one more chance this year -- I would answer yes -- we gave up too much for him not to make sure

I am not happy either -- I am just not sure who to fire -- Here is my thinking -- we brought in Deuce (a move I questioned at the time) but in the end it got some of our draft picks back and saved us from being burned like Miami was when Ricky walked out (think of the taunting the press would have given us). WHo let Roaf walk away -- Glover -- whose fault was that. I guess my point is that sometimes I am not sure if its the player personell moves or the coaching or the owner or what. I do happen to agree that someone should have been held accountable for the last 3 years

I\'m with you 4saints. That\'s why I didn\'t single anyone out, cause at that point, we don\'t truly know who was making those decisions. I know I posted an article a couple of times from not long after Mueller was fired where Haslett demanded more control over personnel decisions, but can\'t say if it truly happened. Also posted an article recently by ESPN for all 32 teams; front offices and who was in control, and currently it says it is Loomis. I was just saying, the person that made the call on drafting Sully, well, trading up to draft him, is prob the same person who thought the Orlando Ruff\'s and such would help our team, and that person should be fired. I also have no way of knowing who that person is.

(1) People should be fired for the following kinds of things: negligence, intentional misconduct, and/or terrible performance.

One mistake does not constitute any of those things. No one should lose their job over Sullivan alone. If there is a track record of such mistakes, then yes; a single incident (no matter how bad) should not.

I realize people are fired for much less than those things, but I\'d have to hear about the particulars before I made a judgement on those cases.

(2) As for the answer to this question: is it possible to be consistent and give A-Mac a choice but not Sully? Of course it is possible. A-Mac has shown that he has character flaws and so has Sully. However, here are a slew of relevant differences: Sully has shown he is lazy - A-Mac that he is a gambler. Those sound different. Sully has failed to become a starter and is getting paid starter money. A-Mac doesn\'t even have a contract. Those sound different. Sully has had his chance to make the team, become a starter, show us anything. A-Mac hasn\'t. That sounds different.

I guess, I think the question is misguided - the only thing that seems similar is the POSSIBLE result - getting a second chance. Otherwise, I don\'t see much grounds for thinking the cases are even remotely similar.

Thus, no inconsistency at all.

(3) Finally, on this idea that Sully is a thief. That is ridiculous. What did he steal? A starting postion, no. A contract, no - that was agreed on by both parties. Money, no - he has a contract. A spot on the roster, no - we could cut him at any time we like. What was stolen? If the answer is nothing, then he is not a thief.

(4) Ok. I lied, one more thing. I understand that some people want to give Sully a chance - I can see that. We would love for him to come through on the expectations we had of him. Problem is, at some point we got to cut our losses. I understand that some people don\'t want to give him another chance - I can see that.

Here\'s an idea that has had a lot of use in my life: sunk costs. When companies evaluate what they should do next, they don\'t look at what they did before - they look at future benefits and future costs. Thus, if they can make more money making gromets, rather than widgets - they should make gromets EVEN IF THEY JUST BOUGHT FANCY NEW WIDGET MAKING MACHINES.

Thus, what we paid Sully, where he was drafted, how much we hated that pick, etc. IS A SUNK COST AND THUS IRRELEVANT.

What is relevant are these things: what he will get paid, the cap hit we will take if we cut him, our expectations about how well he will play next year. Nothing about what has happened should be considered in this decision - that is a sunk cost. Good business practice, good decision making strategy, I suggest we think about it.

Where I work Kool, if I came in, didn\'t do my job but still got paid and took that pay home, I would be called a thief. Sullivan is a thief. If he is getting paid to do a job that he is not doing, he is stealing the pay. If I pay a contractor to redo my roof, and he walks away with the money and never does it, would you not say he stole that money from me? Sullivan has been paid to be a starting DT on this team, and he has been paid to be at his playing weight, both of which he has failed at miserably. TO my knowledge, he has not given that money back, thus making him a thief.

(1) People should be fired for the following kinds of things: negligence, intentional misconduct, and/or terrible performance.

One mistake does not constitute any of those things. No one should lose their job over Sullivan alone

Exactly why I said

I\'m with you 4saints. That\'s why I didn\'t single anyone out, cause at that point, we don\'t truly know who was making those decisions. I know I posted an article a couple of times from not long after Mueller was fired where Haslett demanded more control over personnel decisions, but can\'t say if it truly happened. Also posted an article recently by ESPN for all 32 teams; front offices and who was in control, and currently it says it is Loomis. I was just saying, the person that made the call on drafting Sully, well, trading up to draft him, is prob the same person who thought the Orlando Ruff\'s and such would help our team, and that person should be fired. I also have no way of knowing who that person is.

(1) Whodi, you\'ll agree that being a thief and calling someone a thief are different things, right?

In the case of your contractor, he is a thief, since he took the money and never did anything.

Sullivan isn\'t under contract to be a starter - I\'m certain that is not in his contract. He is under contract to be a Saint. He is a Saint, until he fails to make the roster - which he hasn\'t (since we\'d have to cut him for him to not be on our roster).

I understand your sentiment, but the cases are not parallel.

(2) That might constitute more than one mistake if we knew it was the same person.

Furthermore, Ruff is/was a starter for this team, so I don\'t see as how that is a mistake that is all that bad. He did help the team, just not as much as we would have liked. He was a starter on another NFL team; a player simply failing to meet poorly set (or unrealistic) expectations of them is not a fault of the player.

(3) I\'m not opposed to firing this guy IF it is one guy, he personally did the scouting (or trusted incompetent scouts), and has made more than a few, reasonably foreseable, bad decisions. I just don\'t see any reason to believe we know those things. So, I suppose, I might be inclined to agree with you in principle - just the standards for calling for someone\'s head haven\'t been clearly met, IMO.

I\'m with you 4saints. That\'s why I didn\'t single anyone out, cause at that point, we don\'t truly know who was making those decisions. I know I posted an article a couple of times from not long after Mueller was fired where Haslett demanded more control over personnel decisions, but can\'t say if it truly happened. Also posted an article recently by ESPN for all 32 teams; front offices and who was in control, and currently it says it is Loomis. I was just saying, the person that made the call on drafting Sully, well, trading up to draft him, is prob the same person who thought the Orlando Ruff\'s and such would help our team, and that person should be fired. I also have no way of knowing who that person is.

Which if I am not mistaken ispretty much what you said here:

I\'m not opposed to firing this guy IF it is one guy, he personally did the scouting (or trusted incompetent scouts), and has made more than a few, reasonably foreseable, bad decisions. I just don\'t see any reason to believe we know those things. So, I suppose, I might be inclined to agree with you in principle - just the standards for calling for someone\'s head haven\'t been clearly met, IMO.

Is this not similar? And if it is, what is the cause for the argument?

And we both know Kool, Sully is being paid a starters salary. If he isn;t being paid to start, can you name me some other guys who don\'t start that make a smuch as Sully? Howard Green didn\'t. Brian Young doesn\'t and he starts. Whitehead doesn\'t Bryant doesn\'t. So seeing as how Sully is being pais a starters salary, he is being paid to start. He is also like Is aid being paid to be at his playing weight, as there is a weight clause in his contract. he has done neither. He is being paid for a jobhe is not performing, thus he is a thief, just as the contractor is.

(1) Whodi, I thought we were agreeing on that. I was merely stating the specifics of my agreement. Trust me, I was reading what you said - apologies if it seemed otherwise.

(2) Sully is fufilling his contract. He is paid to be on the team, and he is. He is actually getting paid a good deal less than a lot of starting DTs (as he is still on his rookie contract). I don\'t see what how much he is getting paid has to do with him being a thief (he is contracted for that amount - which was agreed on by both parties).

I think we just have different notions of theivery. I think it means stealing. You think it means not doing something even though you weren\'t contracted to do it - Sully\'s contract states his pay, his signing bonus, etc. to be on the team. It doesn\'t say that he has to start - of course, that could have been written in, but it wasn\'t.

I hate that Sully hasn\'t lived up to his standards, but he is doing what his contract called for, or he wouldn\'t be getting paid. Your fictional contractor merely didn\'t do what his contract said he was to do - that is the difference.

Let\'s say that I get contracted to roof your house. I\'m paid $1 up front and a $1 a day. Say I work three days, and I get paid $4. At the end of the third day, I fall off the roof and break my leg and can\'t finish. Did I steal $4 from you because I didn\'t finish roofing the house? After all, you paid me to roof the house (which I suppose you assumed I would complete).

Let\'s say you pay me to be a roofer. Still $1 a day. I am roofing your house impossibily slowly. Am I a thief or just a bad roofer?

I guess, I don\'t see that it is worth the term thief. Sure, we\'re overpaying him badly, cutting him slack he shouldn\'t get, and treating him like an adult, which he isn\'t, but he\'s not a thief by any conventional definition.

Kool. did Sully get injured? Was he hurt in some way not reported? How does that compare to falling off a roof and not finishing a contracting job? How\'s this, Sully gets paid to play on Sundays correct? Cause he was fat and lazy last year he couldn\'t correct? Sully is paid to HELP the team correct? OR do you feel he is simply paid to stand on the sideline in his uniform? If you feel that\'s what players are paid for, I see where we differ. When an NFL player is paid a salary, in my mind they are paid to perform on Sundays when called upon. If through their own faults they are unable to do this, they are no longer doing what they are being paid for. Thus stealing. I am sorry, but when the amount of money being paid goes up into the millions of dollars, and I am getting NOTHING for those millions, I call it stealing. I am not under the impression that NFL players are paid just to wear a uniform. Why would someone play millions for that? NFL players are paid to perform, and Sully not only has not, he has not come close. He is a thief in my mind. If you don;t feel that way, well that\'s your opinion. But to say a number 6 draft pick who is being paid like a number 6 draft pick is paid simply to be in uniform is a bit ridiculous to me.

If Sullivan is a \"thief\", then EVERY player that shows up out of shape is a \"thief\".

And that includes Deuce McAllister. And that includes ANY player that has ever played in the NFL who has showed up out of shape and given less than 100%.

They are paid to show up in shape and give 100%. Right?

And if they don\'t do that then they are \"thiefs\".

At least if some of you are going to call Sullivan a \"thief\", then you can be consisetent!!

How many more thiefs are on the Saints? In the NFL?

Show me how many games Duece was 100% healthy but too fat and out of shape to play and I will call him a thief. Then show me Deuce or any other player in the NFL in the media buffet line before a game cause they were too useless to be able to play, and I will call them a thief. Good luck finding players that fit that description, but you have the whole NFL to work with. Should be fun to see what you come up with.